1. This team won the division. This is first and foremost to me. This is why I was placing so much importance on winning the division in the first place. It gives us something to show for this season. Maybe that doesn't mean something in the NL Central or AL West, but outpacing the Yankees over 162 games showed me a lot.

2. We made it to the ALCS. Sure, if we lose it will be disappointing. But we played a team with the same record as us, who might be better than us. I won't be happy; but I understand that making it to the ALCS is nothing to sneeze at.

3. We saw glimpses of some very good things to come. If we do get eliminated, I personally will be salivating over the off-season at the thought of watching Buchholz and Ellsbury on an everyday (or every 5th day) basis in 2008. Add to that the fact that we're going to have the AL ROY and things certainly look promising in the future. Breaking in young players is very important and we added 3 pretty good ones in 2007.

4. We got Dice-K's, Drew's and Lugo's bad first year out of the way while winning 96 games...right? right? I might be grasping at straws here, but Drew and Lugo can't possibly have worse seasons next year, can they? And I think Dice-K will improve too.

To which I ask, can I call the season a failure while still feeling mostly positive about it?

You would be hard-pressed to find a member of the Sox organization, from Henry/Lucchino/Epstein on down to the towel boy, who wouldn't tell you that the goal of this season was to win the World Series. Maybe they only say that because it's what the media and fans want to hear-but you'd be hard-pressed to find a Sox fan or credential-holder who wouldn't tell you the same thing. The trend will be to refuse to call the season a failure, but it's a hard case to make. The presence of positive signs and achievements along the way should not cancel out the failure to achieve the ultimate goal.

That said, to force a judgment of the season into binary terms such as success/failure is stupid. To talk about the flaws that lead to failure as compared to the achievements that could point to future success is a worthwhile discussion to have. To argue about which label the total package merits is not.

This season cannot in any way be considered a failure in my mind. First AL East title in 12 years, tied for the best record in baseball, Buchholz's no-no, Lowell's career year, Pedroia's rookie season, Beckett's Cy Young campaign, the god that is David Ortiz, Lester's comeback, Okajima's emergence...there are so many reasons to be happy about how 2007 unfolded. Everything else beyond this point feels like gravy. Sure it'll be disappointing if they do lose the ALCS, but it's not going to change my overall opinion of the 2007 Red Sox.

We can (and have/will) talk about individual failures, but that's a different matter. This is about the larger picture. If getting to or winning the World Series is the only way for a season to be deemed a non-failure, I think that's taking a lot of joy out of the game. It's one thing for the players and the front office to adhere to that sort of mantra for motivation, but it'll only lead to a lot of anger and bitterness for a fan.

Failure? No, not at all. I don't think I would buy anything less than an American League Champion T-shirt, but there have been plenty of reasons to enjoy and be encouraged by the season. Of course here at SoSH, if we pull this series out and then get down 3-1 in the WS, we'll be asking the same question. We have a pennant, we have a lot of young players that will just get better and we have the best fan base in baseball. No shame in any of those.

I think given the attention the line up and rotation received at the beginning of the year, this year has been a slight disapointment up to this point. Of course if this team advances it will take the edge off of it. Call me a fool, but I bought into the hype of Daisuke Matsuzaka and expected him to step and turn into a #2 starter. I bought into the belief that Drew and Lugo were going add needed depth to this lineup. Too bad most of that ended up just being hype.

However, a failure is going too far. The Red Sox won the pennent, saw Beckett evolve into a Cy Young contender, had a suprise set-up man. But most of all, the farm system is starting to produce gems. No matter how this season ends, whether it be today or next week, you have to be excited to see what this team will look like the next few years. Buchholz, Pedroia, Youk, MDC, Lester, and soon Lowrie, Bowden, Masterson. This is best part about this season and the kids alone can negate any sort of title of "failure" for this season.

As a fan, I ask one thing of a baseball team that I follow. Give me meaningful games in September. If they keep doing that, I would never consider the team a failure. Then, as long as it isn't the Yankees that win, or if they don't lose it in some agonizingly frustrating way, I can live with it. (in this case, especially after 2004) And what I try to do, not always with much success, is to avoid attempting to decide who, exactly, is most to blame for the fact that the team didn't win it all. It's rare to win it all, but there probably has never been a team that loses any series at this point of the year where a certain part of their fanbase doesn't start railing against the manager, certain players, or the gm for the pitchers he provided the team, etc.
Just silly in my mind. Sometimes teams just lose and other teams just come through at key moments.

I would say no. Going into tonight, even if they lose I'm not going to be that upset. They're getting their asses beat by Cleveland who's firing on all cylinders and clearly look like the better team offesively, defensively and pitching-wise. They won the division for the first time in 12 years, had the best record and it has been a fun season. That being said, I don't think they lose tonight or in Game 6. I'd be surprised if this series doesn't go 7.

It will not be a failure. Beating the Yankees out for 162 games was very important in making this far from a failure if we do not beat the Indians. We got to see the development of Pedroia this season along with the future in Buchholz and Ellsbury, the comeback of Lester and of course a great season from Beckett. This is a nice core to build on.

I consider it a resounding success. Sure, a WS win would be incredible, but there's a whole lot of room between incredible and failure. Winning the division (over the Yankees), advancing to the ALCS (and farther than the Yankees), best record in baseball, some nice young players, some excellent baseball during the season -- it's been a terrific year.

Very successful year, even if it ends tonight. If they win, it has a chance to be even better.

Losses are always disapointing, but there were too many positive to take away from this season. The Sox won the division, returned to the post-season and won the LDS, over a depleted Angels. Now the Sox are down to a very good Indian team, reflecting vulnerability from the rotation after it had been pretty consistently reliable all season, and an offense which has been hit/miss sporadic all season, decide to go into miss mode.

And while the Tribe has outplayed the Sox in games 2-4, by capitalizing on opportunities presented, it seems that the bounces have largely gone against the Sox. Dave Roberts sends his best.

Hell, if Youks hadn't hit his liner so damn hard to Sizemore, Game 2 would have been won, and today we're hoping Beckett gets us to 3-2 and back to Fenway.

fwiw, my fanboy side says: being down 1-3 is not impossible, nor are solid starts from Beckett, Schilling or Diice-k.

A failure, certainly not. Still, winning the World Series is the goal at the start of the season no matter if you are a Red Sox fan or a Pirates fans. As a Red Sox fan it is not an unrealistic goal.

My final comment is not directed at any specific poster, but at a whole segment of Red Sox Nation Citizens that criticize high expectations and people that have high expectations about the Red Sox.

I read and hear people say that Red Sox fans are becoming like Yankee fans because they expect a World Series win. Well, if expecting the second highest payroll, significantly higher than 3 through the rest, and a team with the superior financial power and fanatically loyal fans (willing to pay top dollar 162 games a year), if those fans can't have the highest expectations then what team should?

While I often wonder if MFY fans are even human and I have always believed the Seinfeld depiction of SiaS to be accurate, I do think they are both on to something. They expect absolute excellence (probably for the wrong reasons) from their team every year.

This is just a normal disappointing year for a consistently very good team because even great teams can't be expected to win the WS every time. And yet the Sox still beat the Yankees in a meaningful 162 game season for the first time in 12 years and there was no drama and bitterness associated with losing to the Yankees in the playoffs.

Not a failure. Their record says best team in baseball. Their talent and depth tells something different. Getting the division and deep into the playoffs is always a positive, but given the context of this particular season it's about what you expect.

Besides, season ain't over yet. Win today and figure the rest out later.

The season was and is a success. Obviously a loss in a postseason series leaves a bad taste in the short term, but finishing tied for the best record in MLB despite Gagne's best efforts is an accomplishment. The development of some young players and the emergence of Beckett have been a pleasure to watch happen.

As a fan, I ask one thing of a baseball team that I follow. Give me meaningful games in September. If they keep doing that, I would never consider the team a failure. Then, as long as it isn't the Yankees that win, or if they don't lose it in some agonizingly frustrating way, I can live with it. (in this case, especially after 2004)

My thoughts exactly. This Red Sox team has its flaws, and to take the AL East title finally, win 96 games and advance to the ALCS (if not the WS) is pretty darned impressive.

That said, if Cleveland proceeds to the Series and blows away the Rockies, a small part of me will always regret that the Sox missed a golden opportunity to win another championship.

No it won't be a failure. I really hate this "The team is built to win the world series" and "If they dont win the world series, the year is a failure" talk that the media is starting to spout. Its unrealistic to say that. I thought it was dumb with the Yanks, and its dumb here with the sox.

I assume this a rhetorical question? Because for anyone to even pose the question in a serious manner as a RS fan is insane. This team with all its warts has gotten to the ALCS and on the way finished ahead of the Yankees for a divisional title, and past the Angels to get to where we are now.
My measure of success each year is having the RS in the championship playoffs. If that is accomplished, then in some years they will go all the way. In others, due to the nature of baseball, the other team will get the timely hits and some close calls fall their way meaning the RS lose the series. But in conclusion, this year is NOT over and yes if Beckett wins tonite, and we get the series back to Fenway, anything can happen. The Tribe is made up of many youngsters who have the ability to tighten up if this series is drawn out by the Sox.

Subjectively, a loss to the Indians will feel like a crushing disappointment. However, the bigger picture - say, a week later, - reveals an impressively successful season, featuring a defeat of the Yankees and the Angels, and many excellent season-long individual performances - notably Beckett, Ortiz, Pedroia, Okajima and a number of happy portends for the future.

Glad to see no one here is hysterically complaining that not reaching the World Series is a failure.

There's become far too much emphasis on a Title or Nothing in American sports over the last 20-30 years. Today, The Shot Heard Round the World would be a brief event in the sports news cycle, overshadowed by the Giants failure to beat the Yanks in the subsequent World Series. I hate the way college football as taken what used to be the best sports day of the year (New Year's Day) and turned it into a sideshow featuring teams that weren't good enough to make it to the real event, the mythical national championship game played several days later. It used to matter if a Big 10 team won the Rose Bowl, now its just a little more than a booby prize for a team that failed along the way. Winning the Big East tournament used to be a big deal, now its just helpful in getting a higher seeding in March Madness. Bah.

And yet the Sox still beat the Yankees in a meaningful 162 game season for the first time in 12 years and there was no drama and bitterness associated with losing to the Yankees in the playoffs.

Also, not much bitterness during the season over the usual "Manny had a drink with a Yankee," "Nomar sulking on the bench," and "Pedro has a sore throat" nonsense we've had to endure over most of the last 10 years. Certainly some ire directed towards Drew or Lugo but at least that reflected on-field failure as opposed to mediots looking to stir up trouble over nothing. That is real progress.

Well I'll guess I'll be the lone dissenting voice in this thread but yeah, its a failure. And a more painful one in some ways than last season.

Every team's goal should be to win the World Series, every year. Just like in the NFL every team should have Super Bowl aspirations every season, and the same in the NBA, NHL, or any other sporting league. You play to win the games, as Herm Edwards would say, not to win most of them and finish with a strong record. Now sure, not every team can truly aim for that goal with legitimacy, especially in MLB, but the Red Sox are one of the few where there is no question that its the primary objective.

Not achieving that, when we're so close, is heart breaking. That said, it doesn't mean we can't take tons of positives away from the season and enjoy the quality baseball the Red Sox played for the majority of the year. If we don't rally back its still a good season, but there's a world of difference between a good season and a successful one.

No it won't be a failure. I really hate this "The team is built to win the world series" and "If they dont win the world series, the year is a failure" talk that the media is starting to spout. Its unrealistic to say that. I thought it was dumb with the Yanks, and its dumb here with the sox.

I'm with you, but the issues flagged above by Jimbosox and 5belongs should not be swept under the rug. There IS a middle position.

Has the season been a success? By every objective measure, yes. But is there reason for disappointment and concern? Absolutely, IMO.

I'm disappointed because Drew, Lugo, Crisp (and even Dice-K to a certain extent) have underperformed reasonable expectations, and there is a connection between that underperformance and the club's current plight. The first three have combined to form a wasteland in the RS lineup, which manifested itself more often than not in the regular season and carried into the playoffs. The FO saw fit to invest $106 MM in the former two, and this fits a pattern of FA acquisitions and trades by the current regime that have disappointed more often than not.

I know of no sensible or fair way of evaluating Theo -- or Brian Cashman, for that matter -- apart from the considerable resources and payrolls at their disposal. This should be discussed, not to bludgeon Theo for the sake of doing so, but to highlight that this franchise appears has a significant problem evaluating major league talent. If that problem is not recognized and addressed, it will continue to burden the club.

What I love about the digital cable TV era is that I have gotten to see parts or all of about 140 Sox games this year, and my team has put up a compelling, and well worth watching effort all year. That's the most I can hope for as a fan.

Maybe that run keeps going; I have a pretty strong vibe that there will be a baseball game played at Fenway on Saturday. I'm certainly looking forward to watching the Sox play tonight, that is going to be a real pleasure, and if it's over tonight, it's a long time til truck day.

Somewhat disappointing? Yes as I really thought with home-field advantage this team would win most playoff series.

Failure? Not at all.

They didn't go all in, but they did probably make this a year they felt with the right amount of luck they could win. Thus, they traded for Gagne, signed Drew and Lugo (no choice there really as they had no RF or SS), and went after Dice K (presumably to replace Schilling a year later but they viewed Dice K as a generational talent so it probably happens no matter what, though Schilling was not supposed to come back in 2008). With Schilling and Lowell free agents, I think they did raise the bar a little on the expectatons.

But, the season was a very good one and integrated the team with more youth and promise than at any time in the last 15-20 years.

It was a very good season. It is always a disappointment when the season ends unless it is with a World Series victory. That said, I personally buy a lot more into the postseason being more subject to luck and streakiness and don't really think it proves one way or the other who the best team really is.

The big success was holding onto the division. No offense to those who don't care as much about it, but if they had lost the division and failed in the playoffs, I think that would have been a failure.

Zup's post is a pretty good reflection of how I view this. Relevant games in September and making the playoffs are really all I ask for in determining whether a season is a success. As disappointing as the Pats' loss in last year's AFC Championship game was, the fact that I was watching a football game that mattered to me that late in the year was incredible, especially when one considers the Pats pre-Parcells. The same thing is true regarding the Sox in the semi-finals this season, and the fact that the MFYs and their fans are also watching along with us makes the year successful, too.

I admit that if you asked me this question in the past, I might have answered differently. Whether it's a result of 2004 or just more reflection on the issue, it's now clear to me that the SiaS approach to success is short sighted. It's no wonder that the MFYs view every season as a referendum on the manager given how they define success. Maybe their "pride, pinstripes and paralysis" approach to the decision to actually fire Torre means that their thinking on this question is changing, too.

We all know how many teams accomplish each of those goals every year. It's a tough league too and we're in a tough division. Myself, I'm a believer that your season is about giving yourself a chance in the playoffs. They got themselves that chance and have done something with it so far. A failure if they lose in the ALCS? No. Some people say there aren't stupid questions, I disagree.

Let's say, hypothetically, they lose tonight. I don't expect that they will, but just for the sake of argument. So, if a team posts a 96-66 record over the first 162 games over six long, travel-heavy, injury-riddled months -- but then puts up a 4-4 record in their next eight games, then the season's a failure? I think not.

The point is, the postseason tournament is an artificial product of our TV age. It's closer to a game show than to professional sports. In the pre-divisional play era, winning the WS was important, or course, but it wasn't the be-all and end-all that it is today. And that was a time when the WS was much better at determining who the better team was. Since divisional play has begun, and especially in the Wild Card era, would anyone say that the best team always wins the postseason tournament?

Do we want to win it? More than anything. Is not winning a huge letdown? Yup. But is it the ultimate arbiter of success and failure in the profession of Major League Baseball? If it is, we're truly living in a dreamworld.

We all know how many teams accomplish each of those goals every year. It's a tough league too and we're in a tough division. Myself, I'm a believer that your season is about giving yourself a chance in the playoffs. They got themselves that chance and have done something with it so far. A failure if they lose in the ALCS? No. Some people say there aren't stupid questions, I disagree.

Agreed. I think with the payroll and talent of this team every year it is a failure to not make the playoffs. Once in it, it really becomes unpredictable, as the Rockies have shown. Right now they're getting beat by a better team, but that dynamic can turn quickly. I just want them to get back to Fenway. Then I can worry again.

Agree with everything said above -- slightly disappointed if we lose tonight, of course, but hardly a failure. By most measures a success, particularly given the bright future.

I'll just add this: For me, a successful season is one that generates moments that bring you joy, as memroies, later on. And this season had its share. For me, the highlight was the no-hitter. (It was personally special for me bc I got to watch it on tv with my 8-year-old, who started calling the no-no in the 4th inning.)

In November and December, when the baseball is done and we're all waiting for pitchers and catchers to report, I know I'll think about that game -- and that experience. And it will make me happy. That's a form of success, too.

Definitely not a failure, but I'd say that there's some segment that won't be able to appreciate the numerous small successes this year just because the team was unable to duplicate the transcendence of 2004. I mean, this IS a better team, taken as a whole, than the 2004 team, so, they should be able to win it all convincingly, right? Not necessarily, since, as has been stated above, the postseason really is a crapshoot and things can fall one way or another.

I think there's a yearning for a historical wall-to-wall dominant season like the 1998 Yankees or 2001 Mariners. This could have been the year, but that pretty much disappeared in June.

That said, there aren't really any storm clouds brewing overhead. I think we can all reasonably expect the team to be competitive for the next 5 seasons, and isn't competitiveness what it's all about? Just to even MAKE the postseason if a success in my book.

I think I'd still take the 2004 team over the 2007 team heading into the respective post-seasons because of the balance on offense and we had two starting pitchers that could be counted on to go deep, and ended up with 3 in the end.

Sox in 2004 were ranked 1st in offense and 3rd in pitching and were pretty decent favorites in Vegas to win despite not winning the division.

2007 team had amazing pitching and very good offense, but the team heading into the post-season had two over 40 starters--two guys who missed time. Dice K was erratic much of the second half, and Ortiz was hurt, plus they had to rest Okajima.

So, I'd say heading into post-season play, the 2004 had greater expectations for good reasons. In 2007, there were 2 other teams just in the A.L. that rivaled the Sox and the Sox best months were early not late.

Definitely not a failure, but I'd say that there's some segment that won't be able to appreciate the numerous small successes this year just because the team was unable to duplicate the transcendence of 2004.

To be fair, in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, however long you want to take it, no one gives two flying shits about the division winner or advancing to the LCS.

Championships are remembered.

Unless they start up a Yankee/Atlanta-like string of 5-10 division titles in a row. That would be memorable for sustained dominance. Winning the division for the first time in a while is nice. It's great. It's what we all wanted. In the big picture, however, it's not even in the same discussion as winning the Series.

That is not a slight to their accomplishments if they are eliminated, it's merely a fact. Divisions are nice in the present. Championships are lasting.

By no means, in my opinion, could this season be called a failure. We had a great run in the regular season and outlasted the Yankees and there were a multitude of individual accomplishments that supplimented that experience. Making the playoffs makes this a successful season. I will be upset if we don't advance past the ALCS but I can also aknowledge that the Indians are a worthy team to lose to, if that were to occur.

Go get them tonight Beckett and increase the lore of the legend of the 2007 Cy Young award winner!

I mean, this IS a better team, taken as a whole, than the 2004 team, so, they should be able to win it all convincingly, right?

Are they, though? It comes down to taking Pedroia/Drew/Lowell over Damon/Cabrera/Nixon, and Beckett/Matsuzaka over Pedro/Lowe--taking the '07 bullpen as better is a given. In another year Matsuzaka probably justifies the money and advantage he has over Lowe, Pedroia matures even more, and Drew makes his own adjustments to balance whatever loss of production there will be from Lowell (either from age or absence). But right now this playoff team is not at all better than the one from '04, and on paper for the potential week ahead they're not better.

That team did what it did in its own LCS due in large part to the fact that, in the last three games it needed to win, Pedro Martinez, a younger Curt Schilling, and a Derek Lowe who was lights out all October, ready to meet the challenge. Though it could be said that the question mark is no different for either Curt Schilling, that Game 7 was not as much of an "anything can happen" game as people have branded it as. While I'm going to believe with all my heart and all my reason that Josh Beckett is as good of a momentum-changer--if not one of the best--the same doesn't go for the road ahead if it gets back to Fenway.

The 2007 Red Sox are the ones more in need of "Believing."

/hijack

But no, not a failure. Beckett/Pedroia awards would be more than a consolation.

Even if they don't win another game it's certainly not a failure. That said, there has been something oddly unsatisfying about this team. I think there are two factors.

1. This team was consistentyl very good but never dominant. They never won more than five in a row. This is a sharp contrast with the 2004 teams that was average save for one spectacular month and then an 8 game in the playoffs.

2. This team never really developed a cohesive personality. There are a lot of players on this team that I love, but I'm not sure I love the TEAM itself, at least not like I loved the 2003, 2004 or 1999 squads.

If they keep going, this may change, but what is the identify of this team. We had idiots, cowboys, and even in 1999 there was a weird Mambo#5 fixation. What is this team's identifying creed?